Why Does Reinforcement Learning Need a Math Curriculum?
Charlie O'Neill says a recent paper trained a decent language model only through fifth-grade math and primary-school English, then tried reinforcement learning on late high school and college math. The gap was too large, and the model did not climb. Year-by-year rungs change the outcome. Year seven math, then year eight, and so on, make a climb to year twelve possible. The distance between the rungs, and how hard each rung is to create, decides whether the climb happens.
Beren Millidge says reinforcement learning is not very good at exploring. A model that fails to find a useful signal inside 128 rollouts is very unlikely to progress. That is why reinforcement learning needs a curriculum and pre-training does not. At the frontier, O'Neill's question is how many new math problems and new coding problems sit beyond what current models already reach. Spreadsheet tasks and legal tasks still hold a lot of signal. Millidge says the pre-training signal is already in Common Crawl and the task is filtering noise, which is automatable. In mid-training and post-training that signal is not sitting in the original data.
AI researchers debate how close we are to recursive self-improvement ·